No friend of federalism, no friend of mine

Governor Christie seems to think he can override the expressed will of the voters of several states via federal action. Because federal interference in states’ matters is cool for stuff he doesn’t like.

13 thoughts on “No friend of federalism, no friend of mine”

    1. Duty bound to what? Interfere in intrastate commerce? Or could he be duty-bound to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution by not enforcing unconstitutional laws backed by a terrible, awful, no good, very bad, SCOTUS decision (Wickard v. Filburn).

      1. One of the most important duties of the President is to enforce the nation’s duly enacted laws. The states might have the right to legalize drugs in their own borders and not cooperate with federal authorities. However, the President has the duty to uphold and enforce federal laws until such time as the relevant laws and treaties are revoked or struck down by the courts. That’s called the rule of law.

        1. But he has a higher duty to enforce the Constitution, and where federal law and the Constitution conflict, he must honor only the later. And it’s clear he federal law he’d be enforcing is unconstitional.

          Practically, it would be very dangerous to enforce such laws on a populace who does not want them. Kind of like a king enforcing his laws on his subjects.

  1. Not that I’m a fan of legalized pot (not really against legalized pot either since it’s always been easily available and I might have even tried it myself at some point in my misspent youth) but this drops my respect of Christie as a politician by many points. Does he not realize, at least in Colo., this law passed a popular vote? Colorado isn’t a whole lot of electoral votes but I think he can kiss the state goodbye with this statement.

    Pot users will eagerly vote to defend it, and there are actually a lot of people moving to colorado just BECAUSE of the new law.

    Was lukewarm on Christie at best, now I’m stone(d) cold.

  2. I’m still not convinced that Christi is as bad as he’s made out to be. Anything that comes out of his mouth has to be taken in light of one simple fact:

    He’s a republican who got elected in an extremely left left state.

    That’s no small feat.

    Another factor is for a politician, votes are more important than accomplishing anything, meaning that promising to do something but not doing it keeps a stream of voters in your camp. But accomplish your stated goal and you lose those voters.

    Given that the left has 240 electoral votes out of 270 locked up until there is some sort of split within the democratic party (and there will be eventually), the ability to get votes from a wider base will be key.

    I’m not a fan boy of Christi by any means, but I do distinguish between what a politician says and what he does. They are two very distinct animals.

    1. “He’s a republican who got elected in an extremely left left state.
      That’s no small feat.”

      It just means he’s to the left of many Democrats, and barely within shouting distance of most Republicans. How is that a selling point, outside of NJ, MA, CA, and similar states?

      1. It means he can pander to the extreme right anti drug crowd to show how conservative he is.

        Which he is doing right now in Co.

        Personally, I think its just talk.

    2. I live in NJ, voted for him both times. Every time he makes the news recently, other than for his 2A pandering, he reminds me that I won’t be voting for him in the Presidential primary. (I’m reserving judgement for the general election, but I probably won’t be voting for him there either, and depending on holding the House).
      He won in NJ because the NJ Dems have thoroughly trashed their political bench in the state, despite basically owning the legislature. It’s a reflection of the state of the Dem party nationwide, in that they’re not “promoting” new and fresh faces through the ranks.

      1. That’s kind of what I figured.

        The success of people like Christie in blue states is mostly a reflection of the rot that is inevitable in single party states. When a party is so dominate that they feel they can get away with anything, eventually they put up someone so horribly awful that a relatively decent opponent from the other party can beat him in a statewide election.

  3. He’s a “law and order” conservative through and through. That’s one reason even aside from the gun issue, I can’t get behind him.

    1. He’s a former prosecutor with the all-too-common view that everyone ought to be guilty of something.

      1. Yep, Christie’s latest Trumpism is just another example demonstrating the former prosecutor’s desire to be the witchfinder general for an American police-state.

Comments are closed.